Jump to content

Recommended Posts

(a) By any trick, scheme, or device, knowingly and willfully conceal from the peace officer any material fact relating to the criminal investigation.

 

*That means if you say anything you have to disclose "ALL" that you know.

 

A CRAZY AMOUNT OF POWER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(a) By any trick, scheme, or device, knowingly and willfully conceal from the peace officer any material fact relating to the criminal investigation.

 

If there are 5th amendment implications for the citizen / witness would silence be willful concealment?

I recall that the SCOTUS ruled recently that simply remaining silent is not enough, but that it is necessary to state to law enforcement that you will not answer questions. The gist of the decision is that silence is the equivalent of guilt.

 

Can someone help out and post a link to the case? I'm more than a little medicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall that the SCOTUS ruled recently that simply remaining silent is not enough, but that it is necessary to state to law enforcement that you will not answer questions. The gist of the decision is that silence is the equivalent of guilt.

 

Can someone help out and post a link to the case? I'm more than a little medicated.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/

 

Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial.   If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.

 

His lawyer wanted the Supreme Court to rule that the simple fact of silence during police questioning, when an individual was not under arrest, could not be used against that person at a criminal trial.   The Court did not rule on that issue. Instead, it said that Salinas had no complaint about the use of his silence, because in order to claim the Fifth Amendment right to say nothing that might be damaging, he had to explicitly say something that showed his silence was a claim of that right.  Since he did not do so, the Amendment did not protect him, according to the decision.

 

(all of the above is from link not me - well I did bold that the court didn't rule on the issue)

Edited by YesMichigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll confess to being a "Yes, sir." "No, sir." Kind of person during interactions. Direct with no extra words. Nothing emotional and nothing detailed.

 

These aren't the droids you're looking for...

I thought I was out of the woods when I told an officer just that when pulled over in a local speed trap. She promptly excused herself and said she would be right back. My 5 over became a 15 over. Best money I ever spent.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...